Com. v. Jones, J.
Com. v. Jones, J. No. 1329 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 16, 2017Background
- On July 5, 2015, Officer Cheryl Frey observed Jamil Lute Jones walking with others, recognized his face from roll call as associated with an active warrant, and asked for identification.
- Jones removed a red vest and handed it to a companion before producing ID; Frey then confirmed a warrant through dispatch and handcuffed Jones.
- While being escorted, Jones told Frey there was a firearm in the vest; officers recovered a .380 Ruger from the vest after backup arrived.
- Jones moved to suppress the firearm as fruit of an unlawful stop/search; the suppression court credited Frey’s testimony and denied the motion.
- A jury convicted Jones of carrying a firearm without a license; he was sentenced to 2.5–6 years.
- On appeal, Jones challenged (1) the denial of suppression (reasonable suspicion for the stop/detention) and (2) the discretionary aspects of his sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial stop/detention was supported by reasonable suspicion | Commonwealth: Officer Frey reasonably suspected Jones due to her specific recognition of him as someone with an active warrant | Jones: Officer Frey only had a hunch/mismatched name and lacked particularized suspicion, so the stop was unlawful | Court: Stop and brief detention were lawful — Frey’s specific recognition (even with name mismatch) supplied reasonable suspicion |
| Whether Jones’s sentence was an abuse of discretion / excessive | Commonwealth: Sentencing court considered PSI and relevant factors (public protection, gravity, rehabilitation) | Jones: Sentencing court failed to adequately consider mitigating factors; sentence is excessive | Court: Claim waived/failed to present a substantial question; even on review, sentence was reasonable given PSI and articulated reasons |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lyles, 97 A.3d 298 (Pa. 2014) (totality test and whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave)
- Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 147 A.3d 1200 (Pa. Super. 2016) (request for ID plus restraint can constitute an investigative detention)
- Commonwealth v. Hudson, 995 A.2d 1253 (Pa. Super. 2010) (officer’s possession of a person’s identification can effectuate an investigative detention)
- Commonwealth v. Carter, 105 A.3d 765 (Pa. Super. 2014) (reasonable suspicion requires particularized, articulable basis; no mere hunch)
- Commonwealth v. Boyer, 856 A.2d 149 (Pa. Super. 2004) (where judge had a PSI, court is presumed aware of and to have considered defendant’s background in sentencing)